Saturday, January 16, 2010

The New York Times reports on the sentencing of the 8-year-old Arizona boy, now 10, who shot and killed his father and another man. We've discussed the case a number of times including here and here.

A 10-year-old St. Johns boy who was accused of killing his father and another man in November 2008 was ordered to a residential treatment program in Maricopa County. The length of the boy’s stay is unclear, but he will also be placed on intensive probation until he turns 18. The boy was 8 when he was charged in the shooting deaths of his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and his father’s friend, Timothy Romans, 39. The boy pleaded guilty to shooting Mr. Romans and the charges related to his father’s death were dropped as part of a plea deal. A motive has never been made clear.

What is wrong with the folks down there in Arizona? First of all, in one of the early interviews, the boy said he did it because he didn't want to be beaten any more. Now the NYT reports that the "motive has never been made clear?" Maybe we can't blame Arizona for that, huh? But what we can blame them for is the circus-like mishandling of this case from the beginning. The arrest, the early statements by the police, the questions of incompetence, all involving an 8-year-old, made this one of the most outrageous cases we've seen, in my opinion? The way the police were acting like they had a teenage or adult perpetrator on their hands was laughable. They should be ashamed of themselves.

And secondly, the sentencing makes me wonder what kind of place is that "residential treatment program in Maricopa County?" It sounds like a euphemism for the kind of place tough juvenile delinquents are held. THIS BOY IS 10 YEARS OLD. What a travesty.

Enoch Hall, 40, murdered Donna Fitzgerald in June 2008. A jury recommended Hall get the death penalty and, Friday, a judge agreed. Hall waited in a work shed that day in June 2008. Fitzgerald had to come find him and, when she did, he pulled out a sheet metal shank and stabbed her in the heart.

As so often happens in these cases, the reason for the maximum sentence is explained.

"I'm just so relieved. It's what everybody has wanted. It's the justice she deserves. It's shocking, it's almost surreal that it's actually happening," said Dana Shaure, the victim's sister.

Inside the courtroom, about two dozen corrections officers were sitting along with Fitzgerald's siblings and there were tears all around. Officers’ jaws were trembling as Fitzgerald's killer was sentenced to death.

Fitzgerald's family did not hold back in telling the judge what they thought Hall's sentence should be.

“Immediate death. Immediate. If it could be at noon time today, I’d be thrilled. I’d be ecstatic,” said Donald Shaure, the victim’s brother.

While the true motive for the sentence was expedience, the family quotes are all about vengeance dressed up as justice. It's ironic that supporters of the death penalty, usually conservative folks, are unabashedly basing their opinions on emotion. The family and the colleagues of the victim want payback, an eye for an eye.

The judge and the State have a more calculating agenda. Like any dangerous animal, Enoch Hall needs to be put down. He's just too dangerous. The only problem with that is Enoch is one of us. He's not an animal. And as convenient as it will be, killing him is wrong.

Did Glenn Beck really endorse Sarah Palin's plans of running for President? I said I'd quit blogging if that happened, but as long as we have guys like Jon Stewart to keep it funny, I guess I'll stick around.

McQueen: This flag has never been meant to replace the national flag. This flag has a specific purpose and it's time has come. To show the politicians and the media that we're ready for a second American revolution. And with that, you know, in America we have a choice of four boxes for political change. We can go to the soap box, the ballot box, or we can go to the jury box. And hopefully we won't have to go to the bullet box.

Ashbrook: Bullet box? Are you talking about armed revolution?

McQueen: Have you seen the ammunition sales the last twelve months?

What's your opinion? Do you think it's reasonable to talk about "tyranny" and threaten to "go to the bullet box?"

My new favorite blog is Ohh Shoot. That's a pretty cool name for a blog, something I've been told I could use. The name could be a euphemism for "Oh, shit," which is what you say as soon as you realize you just accidentally shot your best friend, plus the more politically correct "shoot" is always one of our favorite words.

Here's the raison d'etre.

Ohh Shoot highlights unintentional shootings. Some might refer to these as accidental shootings, but accident is too often interpreted as unavoidable. The shootings on this blog did not have to happen. Safe storage, better gun design, gun safety training are just some of the measures that could have prevented these tragedies.

What's your opinion? Is this blog going to give us another thing to compare DGUs to. At a quick glance, the Ohh Shoot people are practically keeping pace with The Armed Citizen list of DGUs. And don't forget we've also got that Violence Policy Center list of concealed carry murderers to compare to.

Some guy with a sawed-off shotgun entered KBEZ's building in Tulsa, Oklahoma demanding to speak with radio personality, Carly Rush. 92.9 KBEZ plays "Today's Variety and Yesterday's Favorites!". Rush is co host on the Steve & Carly in the Mornings show and also is on solo from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

Thanks to the quick actions of a secretary who left the room and called police, 58-year-old Barry Styles was taken into custody, but not until he was shot three times after brandishing the gun to responding police.

Several charges are pending against Styles including possession of a sawed-off shotgun and reckless conduct with a firearm.

I wondered when's the last time an armed lefty tried to kill one of the conservative talk show personalities. I believe, except for a brief period in the 1960s, this type of thing is the exclusive bailiwick of the right.

Pennsylvania state police believe a man fatally ambushed a state trooper responding to a domestic dispute, and also killed his wife before turning the gun on himself, investigators said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Lenny Bandy said a man police couldn't see yelled from a window as two troopers responded to a dispute at the home of Michael J. Smith, 44, shortly after 11:30 a.m. Wednesday.

When the troopers yelled back for the man to present himself, a man they believe is Smith instead fired one shot, striking Trooper Paul G. Richey as he attempted to enter a side door, according to Bandy.

When the police eventually stormed the house they found the two dead bodies. All the details are not in of course, but this sure sounds like another gun owner who, up until the moment of cracking up, was simply part of the group which has nothing to do with murder or misuse of weapons. How can the rest of that group, the lawful gun owners, continue to disavow any knowledge or involvement in these incidents. They don't want stricter laws and more restrictions, yet they don't want to take responsibility when one of their own does something like this. It doesn't seem right to me.

What's your opinion? Cannot these guys who kill their wives with guns, and who kill anyone who interferes with their doing that, be weeded out? Isn't there a way to identify them before they act? For example, don't you think the friends, the fellow gun owners and the neighbors might have known something was wrong with this guy and that he was unfit to have guns?

Shouldn't gun owners be more responsible in policing themselves, especially since they don't want the government to do it?

The New York Times reports on the heartbreaking story of a guy trying to survive in New York. Link provided by Fishy Jay with the witty remark, "The Times, they are a-changin'."

The night the robbers shoved their way in, Jason Baez lay on the living room floor, terrified. He worried for his children, asleep in their bedroom; for his wife, prostrate next to him; and for himself as two men brandished guns and a third accomplice, a woman, lashed Mr. Baez and his wife with duct tape and electrical cord.

This happened on 101st Street in Manhattan. After a terrible ordeal trying to save his family by moving them to Jersey temporarily, the man bought a cheap handgun in order to protect them and was eventually arrested for it.

He was arrested, and despite having no criminal record, he faced up to three and a half years in prison. Prosecutors offered him a deal of one year if he pleaded guilty, and he accepted. He is to be sentenced Jan. 27.

“We were afraid to fight it,” Ms. Baez said. “We couldn’t be without him for three and a half years.”

I'd say that's a story that would touch the cold heart of even Mayor Bloomberg. But, I guess we'll find that out on January 27th. What do you think?

KOAT.com reports on the questions raised after an accidental shooting in a crowded theater.

Saturday’s movie theater shooting has many questioning New Mexico's law on gun control.

“If this young man had actually had a license to carry the weapon, he would have been much better trained. I doubt, very seriously, that he would have actually been in a situation where the gun would have just discharged,” said State Rep. Gail Chasey.

Police said Dante Aikins had no permit to carry the loaded revolver. It went off in a crowded theater, injured one person, and it has lawmakers asking questions.

“Would we then want to look at changing the law?” Chasey said. “But I don't think there's the political will to further restrict the law."Chasey said that is the main issue -- no desire to change the state law.

The current law prevents weapons from being brought into courthouses, on school property and inside establishments that serve liquor.

Chasey even tried to introduce a bill called the Handgun Safety Standard Act in 2001. Her bill never made it passed debate on the floor of the House.

So for now, crowded venues, like theaters, stores and sporting events are fair game until the state gun law can be tightened.

I have to ask, along with my gun-enthusiast friends I would imagine, what tightening up of the state law would prevent something like this? Obviously none, at least not directly. When some dopey guy wants to bring a gun along, nothing will stop him.

What can be done though, is we can begin to gradually change our attitude towards guns. The idea that bringing a gun along is a good plan, whether you have a CCW permit or not, is just plain mistaken in most cases. When is the last time you needed a gun in the movies?

It's the gun culture that needs to be reined in.

What's your opinion? Do you think Gail Chasey is right to say if he'd had a license to carry he would have been better trained? Isn't the training minimal in any case? Isn't this type of gun mishandling more dependent on the person's character rather than the little training required for a license?

A Westford man has pleaded not guilty to a first-degree murder charge after prosecutors said he fatally shot his wife and then turned the gun on himself during an argument.

Middlesex District Attorney's spokeswoman Jessica Venezia said Tuesday that Frederick Leduc was also arraigned at a Massachusetts General Hospital room on weapon charges.

The 45-year-old was taken to the hospital after turning the gun on himself after firing the weapon on 43-year-old Karen Leduc at their home on Saturday night.

The woman died at a Worcester hospital where she had been in critical condition since the incident.

Leduc was originally charged with armed assault with intent to murder, but that charge was upgraded after his wife died. His attorney did not immediately return a call for comment left after business hours.

I'm not sure what "turned the gun on himself" really means. Did he aim the gun at himself and not fire, did he fire and miss, did he give himself a superficial wound?

Fox News reports on the deadly shooting in Georgia in which another deranged man shot up the work place and his colleagues.

Police arrived quickly on the scene of the deadly shooting -- a Penske truck rental on Barrett Lakes Boulevard -- and apprehended a suspect, a former employee according to the Penske corporation.

The truck rental group also said that of the five people shot, four were employees and one was a customer.

Police said the shooting in suburban Kennesaw happened inside the business Tuesday afternoon, just before 2 pm.

It seems like the disgruntled employee syndrome is flourishing in America. The economy probably has something to do with it, and the job market. What about gun availability? What about the ever-increasing attitudes in the country that the gun is the answer. Seemingly normal people will not leave home without a gun, even in circumstances where little or no danger exists. That's not to mention the folks who keep guns at home, "just in case." Some of them have never had the slightest reason for doing this.

Others, admittedly, have reason for being armed, folks who live in bad neighborhoods or whose work takes them into dangerous places. But I don't think this applies to most gun owners. The problem is the borderline lunatics, when they crack up they too often have a gun handy.

After the shooting, the suspect, dressed in camouflage attire, left in a pickup truck.

Little information exists about the killer at present, described by the policeman as "an older white male, in good condition, in police custody."

What's your opinion? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "what law could have prevented this?" Is that your response?

I say gun owners need to take responsibility for incidents in which one of their own does something like this. I don't think it's right for the larger body of law-abiding gun owners to continue writing off these guys who get caught committing crimes with guns as if they belong to a different group.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

A Texas City man who was reaching for his pistol accidentally shot himself in the hand during the weekend, police said.

The unidentified man’s wife also was injured when the gun fired.

The couple had just left a Texas City restaurant on Palmer Highway about 7 p.m. Saturday when the man reached under the seat of his car to remove his handgun. While handling the gun, it fired and struck the man’s left ring finger.

His wife had two small wounds on her leg as a result of the gun going off, police said.

The couple drove to Mainland Medical Center where they were treated and released.

While the man did not have a concealed handgun license, he won’t be charged because police said state laws allow someone to carry a pistol in the vehicle as long as it is concealed, Sgt. Joe Stanton said.

I'd say he has no one to blame but himself, and the gun of course. Even the reporting said, "it fired and struck the man’s left ring finger.""It fired..." I thought that was pretty funny.

What's your opinion? Do the pro-gun folks sometimes try to blame the laws and the gun control folks for mishaps like this? I mean, what kind of silly law says you're allowed to have a gun in the car as long as it's concealed? If a guy has no concealed carry permit, he cannot carry concealed outside of his vehicle, but inside he must? And all the while open carry allowed in Texas, isn't it?

With so many confusing laws, it's no wonder so many gun owners are running into trouble.

A Wayne County prosecutor failed today in an effort to revoke bond for a former security guard charged with murder for the alleged vigilante shooting of a man he chased from his backyard.

Although 36th District Judge Donna Robinson Milhouse added restrictions to the conditions of 31-year-old Tigh Croff's release from custody, he will remain free pending trial for the slaying of Herbert Silas, 53.

Croff has been free on bond since New Year's Day, one day after being charged with shooting Silas in the chest after allegedly chasing the Detroit man a block from Croff's recently burglarized east side home. The incident has drawn public support for Croff from residents who are fed up with lawlessness in the city, and outrage from authorities who see his actions as more lawlessness.

I find it truly amazing that this man is not in jail. Notwithstanding the exasperation of the residents of these crime-ridden neighborhoods of Detroit, what Croff did was over the top. Is it the fact that he has a clean record or that he had been a security guard, or is it simply that everybody is so fed up with the criminals that this modern-day Bernhard Goetz is getting special treatment.

I say it's a bad message to all the others who are fed up. Taking the law into their own hands will lead to many more incidents like this. The very definition of DGU will change.

As PhuckPolitics said when he sent me the link, you might find this one interesting even though it's old.

Indeed it is interesting because it touches on some of our favorite discussions. Cory Maye was in his Mississippi home at night with his baby daughter when the police barged into the place. In a desperate attempt at self-defense, he shot and killed the first one through the door. He claims he thought they were home invaders, the police say they announced themselves clearly. Cory was convicted and sentenced to death. Later the sentence was changed to Life, and now a new trial is in the offing.

His case attracted little attention until late 2005, when Reason magazine senior editor and police misconduct researcher Radley Balko brought it to light on his blog "The Agitator." Maye's supporters say his conviction and sentence raise issues about the right to self-defense, police conduct in the War on Drugs, and racial and social inequities in Mississippi. They have also raised questions about whether he has received competent legal representation.

What's your opinion? Is this a case which the left and the right can agree upon? The lefty anti-capital-punishment and civil rights crowd and the righty stand-your-ground self-defense folks can come together at last on this one, don't you think?

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers in addition to 108 private citizens (including 13 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) since May 2007 according to the latest update of Concealed Carry Killers, a Violence Policy Center (VPC) on-line resource that tallies news reports of such killings.

It's been clear to me for a long time that the claim that DGUs equal or outnumber criminal misuse of guns is bogus. But perhaps a different comparison would yield a better result. Weer'd plans to post once a week with a DGU story; perhaps the VPC site can keep pace. What do you think?

Charges are pending against a man who was shot in the chest by a Jarales resident while allegedly trying to break in.

Valencia County Sheriff’s Deputy Chris Trujillo said the shooting occurred shortly after midnight on New Years Day at a house on Mill Road.

According to the deputy, the homeowner, whose name has not been released, heard someone trying to break into his home and called 911. When the suspect entered the house, the homeowner shot him once in the chest, Trujillo said.

“The intruder was airlifted to University of New Mexico Hospital,” Trujillo said.

He said the suspect’s condition was not immediately known Monday, but he is expected to face breaking and entering and other charges upon his release from the hospital. Police are not releasing the suspect’s name until the charges have been filed.

Trujillo said the homeowner is not being charged with any crime.

“He was defending his property,” Trujillo said.

My contention is that many of these so-called DGUs are nothing of the kind. In this story, for example, it sounds like the homeowner laid in wait for the burglar. I pictured a spider quietly awaiting his prey. In my opinion there's too much emphasis on the stand-your-ground defending-what's-mine mentality and too little emphasis on the value of life, even the criminal's.

Even when these incidents fall within the letter of the law, it is morally wrong to shoot someone when it can be avoided.

A nationwide gun ban took effect Sunday in the Philippines to stave off any increase in political violence as elections draw closer, officials said.

Elections in the Philippines are almost always bloody, mainly because of the dominance of political dynasties, the presence of nearly 70 private armies and militias and the proliferation of what are called “loose firearms” — mostly unlicensed and unregistered weapons.

But what does it actually mean when they say "gun ban?" As it turns out, it simply means you have to leave your guns at home, that's all. It's certainly nothing nearly as dramatic as a gun confiscation.

What's interesting is they think it's necessary. They think, based on past experience, that the folks who own guns cannot be trusted with them during the volatile election period. That's pretty much the way gun control people in America feel about concealed carry permit holders.

But, in all fairness, maybe your average gun owner in the Philippines is much more dangerous and untrustworthy than his American counterpart.

H/T to De Rosa for this wonderful ad. Where do you think this comes from though? Is it that idyllic time in America when real men could be reached with images of the shotgun and that nifty hat? Is this from that Utopian period before guns and gun images were politically incorrect? What do you think?

Monday, January 11, 2010

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is turning a traditional NRA argument on its head in her effort to keep handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The National Rifle Association has long fought gun bans saying the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Gun advocates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find Chicago, and Oak Park's gun bans unconstitutional.But in a brief submitted to the Court, Illinois Attorney General argues that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect local governments from the might of the federal government. So it would be ironic if the federal government in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped in to the gun debate and now used the second amendment to diminish local powers. Madigan argues that local governments should regulate guns based on local conditions. Federal courts should not, "enforce a national standard with which every state and locality must comply, regardless of popular will or circumstance." The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case march second.

I believe this has come up before. On this very blog, it's been explained that a similar irony exists in the Heller vs. D.C. ruling.

Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?

A Racine man arrested while openly carrying a holstered gun on his porch is suing the city and two police officers.

The Journal Times in Racine says Frank Hannan-Rock and a gun-rights group filed the federal lawsuit Friday.

The suit challenges Wisconsin's Gun Free School Zone Act, which restricts gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school. The plaintiffs say the act covers so much territory that it's too restrictive for gun owners.

Hannan-Rock was arrested in September when he refused to answer questions from officers investigating a report of shots fired in the area. He wasn't charged.

He says police told him they have probable cause to arrest him in his home when he has a gun and refuses to identify himself because he lives within 1,000 feet of a school.

Now, that's a fascinating story. He was arrested on his own porch? And it was all because his home is too close to the school? Sounds a bit bizarre doesn't it?

Is this one of those cases where the gun owners are trying to have laws changed by getting arrested? Is this civil disobedience? Where do you draw the line? When does civil disobedience cross the line and become criminal activity?

Sunday, January 10, 2010

One of my new favorite blogs to read every day is SouthernFemaleLawyer, who wrote an interesting post called Tsk, Tsk....

In response to a barrage of hostility she received from some of our very own pro-gun commenters, she had this to say.

Apparently, it is just a little too difficult to assess the situation before you jump in.

Which is, ironically, one of the main reasons that I do not think most people need to be hauling their guns around everywhere.

In addition to instilling me with a healthy respect for weapons in general, and those who serve our country in specific, my parents also taught me that we respect other people.

SFL has illuminated a fascinating aspect of the gun debate. As a gun owner herself and believer in the 2nd Amendment, she finds the blogging etiquette of some of the more passionate gun folks to be indicative of the fact that they may be unfit to carry guns around. I don't think I'm reading too much into her remarks when I say, as I often have, that some percentage of lawful gun owners are detrimental to their own cause.

If you can't decently handle the First Amendment, why should we believe you can handle the Second?

What's your opinion? Do you ever wonder if the blogging comportment of certain individuals is indicative of their general behavior? How do you think the gun owner who is unstable and dangerous would sound in blog comments? Or do you think the one has nothing to do with the other?

Two Pennsylvania truckers hauling welding supplies were charged with trying to bring concealed weapons into Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The pair had gun licenses issued in their home state, but they're not valid in Maine.

Police Chief Ed Strong said a tractor-trailer was stopped at a shipyard gate Thursday morning when a Department of Defense officer conducted a search and discovered the driver and passenger were carrying handguns.A Maine state trooper was called to the scene and arrested Jesus Acosta-Pileta and Juan Guevera-Pompa, both 44, on charges of carrying concealed weapons without valid licenses.

Both men claimed they thought their PA concealed carry permits were valid in Maine. That doesn't sound believable to me, what do you think? Isn't it more likely they knew very well it was not permitted but, being otherwise law-abiding gun owners, they took a chance? Isn't that what many would do? If people believe it's important to carry guns for their personal safety, and many truck drivers may be right about that, wouldn't they often decide to violate some of these overly restrictive gun control laws?

Wasn't there an attempt to make this kind of thing legal? Wasn't the failure to achieve Concealed Carry Reciprosityone of the few successes for the gun control folks last year? How common do you think it is that gun owners simply ignore the laws they don't agree with? Does that make them criminals who should be treated like any other?

On January 7, 2010, the far-right Gun Owners of America sent an email to supporters claiming the Senate health care reform bill would trample Americans' second amendment rights. In reality, the bill specifically bans the collection and use of firearm-related data that would adversely affect the rights of gun owners.

Part of the GOA message reads like this:

Senators are now insisting that the current Senate health bill protects the rights of gun owners, even though this version would still allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information.

As an aside, has everyone lost their minds over the word "troll?" Why is this word being misused so often? Are the writers of the word so bereft of a healthy vocabulary that they can't help themselves? And, I can't help but noticing which side of the political divide tends to do this most.

What's your opinion? Is everything objectionable "trolling" now?

About the gun safety issue in the health care debate, wasn't that taken care of? Why are these people still beating a dead horse?

Well, never one to avoid the truth, I admit he's right. There are not "scores" per day, at least not in the main stream media. That would make these stories 20 times more frequent than DGUs. There are only 2 or 3 per day. I tend to exaggerate for emphasis as well as use the occasional attempt at humor and irony. It's confusing I know.

Clark County sheriff's deputies have arrested a 12-year-old boy at his Vancouver-area middle school after finding an unloaded 9 mm handgun and two loaded ammunition clips in the boy's backpack.

Sgt. Craig Randall says the boy told investigators Thursday that he took his father's gun to Pacific Middle School, without permission, to protect himself and friends from a bully.The unidentified boy was taken to Clark County juvenile detention on accusations of theft of a firearm and possession of a dangerous weapon at school.

Randall says officers learned the boy had displayed a knife at school on Monday and the gun on Tuesday and Wednesday. Evergreen Public Schools safety manager Scott Deutsch says a schoolmate told his mother about the gun Wednesday evening and she alerted the school early Thursday.

Evergreen spokeswoman Carol Fenstermacher says the district is investigating the gun incident and the claims of bullying.

Fox 12 Oregon reports on a sixth-grader. Perhaps the authors of these reports picked up on the observation of FatWhiteMan. This one also mentions the dad.

A 12-year-old boy suspected of bringing a handgun to school twice was arrested Thursday, deputies said.

Clark County sheriff's deputies were called to Pacific Middle School on NE 172nd Avenue at about 9:15 a.m. after school officials learned about the weapon.

Deputies were told the student brought his father's gun to school Tuesday and had shown it to other students. He also brought it Wednesday, deputies said.

A Glock 9mm handgun and two loaded magazines were found in the student's backpack, according to the sheriff's office. Deputies said the 12-year-old took the gun from his father without permission.

There are more, but I think you get the point. It's interesting that all the reasons kids used to bring guns to school in the good old days are never mentioned, you know, to do show and tell, to go hunting immediately after. Today's stories are both about being bullied. I wonder if this is also handed down from father to son. Years ago perhaps the gun owning dads were not so paranoid and fearful as they are today.